legislative requirement (Nevada) · Go Syfert
← Nevada issues

legislative requirement in Nevada

6 Nevada opinions name it 1 courts 1952–2021 1 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Nevada courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (5)

CaseFollowedCited
Western Realty Co. v. City of Renogreen
nev · 1946 · cited in 1 Nevada opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014
2 sentences

2014Realty Co., 63 Nev. at 344, 172 P.2d at 165, and the statute is impliedly repealed by the constitutional amendment. 2 Nevada's Attorney General reached the same conclusion in 2005: [TI he people, by acting to amend the minimum wage coverage and failing to include the statutory exclusions in the proposed amendment, are presumed to have intended the repeal of the existing exclusions so that the new minimum wage would be paid to all who meet its definition of "employee." Accordingly, the proposed amendment would effect an implied repeal of the exclusions from minimum wage coverage at NRS 608.250(

2014Realty Co., 63 Nev. at 344, 172 P.2d at 165, and the statute is impliedly repealed by the constitutional amendment. 2 Nevada's Attorney General reached the same conclusion in 2005: [TI he people, by acting to amend the minimum wage coverage and failing to include the statutory exclusions in the proposed amendment, are presumed to have intended the repeal of the existing exclusions so that the new minimum wage would be paid to all who meet its definition of "employee." Accordingly, the proposed amendment would effect an implied repeal of the exclusions from minimum wage coverage at NRS 608.250(

11
Mengelkamp v. Listgreen
nev · 1972 · cited in 1 Nevada opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014
2 sentences

2014The Amendment's broad definition of employee and very specific exemptions necessarily and directly conflict with the legislative exception for taxicab drivers established by NRS 608.250(2)(e). 2 Therefore, the two are "irreconcilably repugnant," Mengelkamp, 88 Nev. at 546, 501 P.2d at 1034, such that "both cannot stand," W.

2014The Amendment's broad definition of employee and very specific exemptions necessarily and directly conflict with the legislative exception for taxicab drivers established by NRS 608.250(2)(e). 2 Therefore, the two are "irreconcilably repugnant," Mengelkamp, 88 Nev. at 546, 501 P.2d at 1034, such that "both cannot stand," W.

11
Krick v. Krickgreen
nev · 1960 · cited in 1 Nevada opinions naming this issue, 1988–1988
2 sentences

1988Although it could be argued *608 syntactically that the quoted language relates only to property division, we interpret the statute to mean that, since 1861, alimony awards must in this jurisdiction be “just and equitable.” 3 Furthermore, as required by NRS 125.150(1), the award must be fairly related to the “respective merits” of the parties and to the “condition in which they will be left by the divorce.” The legislative standard was accepted and properly restated in Krick v. Krick, 76 Nev. 52, 59 , 348 P.2d 752, 755 (1960).

1988Although it could be argued *608 syntactically that the quoted language relates only to property division, we interpret the statute to mean that, since 1861, alimony awards must in this jurisdiction be “just and equitable.” 3 Furthermore, as required by NRS 125.150(1), the award must be fairly related to the “respective merits” of the parties and to the “condition in which they will be left by the divorce.” The legislative standard was accepted and properly restated in Krick v. Krick, 76 Nev. 52, 59 , 348 P.2d 752, 755 (1960).

11
Johnson v. Steel, Inc.green
nev · 1978 · cited in 1 Nevada opinions naming this issue, 1988–1988
2 sentences

1988An example of this matters-to-be-considered approach can be found in Johnson v. Steel, Inc., 94 Nev. 483, 486 , 581 P.2d 860, 862 (1978), where we failed to mention the general statutory principles and instead focused on the “limits to their [the trial courts’] discretion,” which we defined in terms of the trial courts’ being required to follow certain “guidelines” or “matters to be considered,” which were borrowed from a previous case, Buchanan v. Buchanan, 90 Nev. 209 , 523 P.2d 1 (1974).

1988An example of this matters-to-be-considered approach can be found in Johnson v. Steel, Inc., 94 Nev. 483, 486 , 581 P.2d 860, 862 (1978), where we failed to mention the general statutory principles and instead focused on the “limits to their [the trial courts’] discretion,” which we defined in terms of the trial courts’ being required to follow certain “guidelines” or “matters to be considered,” which were borrowed from a previous case, Buchanan v. Buchanan, 90 Nev. 209 , 523 P.2d 1 (1974).

11
In Re Murchison.green
scotus · 1955 · cited in 1 Nevada opinions naming this issue, 1983–1983
1 sentence

1983As the Supreme Court has said, In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136 (1955): Fairness of course requires an absence of actual bias in the trial of cases.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nevada. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (7)

CaseCitedYears
Romer v. Colorado General Assembly green
colo · 1991
2 sentences

2021We also do not consider the Senators' arguments regarding Romer v. Colorado General Assembly, 810 P.2d 215 (Colo. 1991), as that case addresses the Colorado Constitution's legislative immunity provision rather than that of the United States' Constitution.

2021We also do not consider the Senators' arguments regarding Romer v. Colorado General Assembly, 810 P.2d 215 (Colo. 1991), as that case addresses the Colorado Constitution's legislative immunity provision rather than that of the United States' Constitution.

12021–2021
Buchanan v. Buchanan green
nev · 1974
2 sentences

1988An example of this matters-to-be-considered approach can be found in Johnson v. Steel, Inc., 94 Nev. 483, 486 , 581 P.2d 860, 862 (1978), where we failed to mention the general statutory principles and instead focused on the “limits to their [the trial courts’] discretion,” which we defined in terms of the trial courts’ being required to follow certain “guidelines” or “matters to be considered,” which were borrowed from a previous case, Buchanan v. Buchanan, 90 Nev. 209 , 523 P.2d 1 (1974).

1988An example of this matters-to-be-considered approach can be found in Johnson v. Steel, Inc., 94 Nev. 483, 486 , 581 P.2d 860, 862 (1978), where we failed to mention the general statutory principles and instead focused on the “limits to their [the trial courts’] discretion,” which we defined in terms of the trial courts’ being required to follow certain “guidelines” or “matters to be considered,” which were borrowed from a previous case, Buchanan v. Buchanan, 90 Nev. 209 , 523 P.2d 1 (1974).

11988–1988
McKinley Brown, Etc. v. T. A. Vance, Etc., Mary Jean Boone, Etc., Cross-Appellee v. Walter L. Dennis, Etc., Cross-Appellants green
ca5 · 1981
1 sentence

1983It was interested rather in the inherent defect in the legislative framework arising from the vulnerability of the average man— as the system works in practice and as it appears to defendants and to the public.” Id. at 284 .

11983–1983
Taylor v. State and Univ. green
nev · 1957
2 sentences

1970The case of Taylor v. State and Univ., 73 Nev. 151 , 311 P.2d 733 (1957), is not apposite.

1970The case of Taylor v. State and Univ., 73 Nev. 151 , 311 P.2d 733 (1957), is not apposite.

11970–1970
Finzer v. Peter neutral
neb · 1930
2 sentences

1952When the claim substantially complies with the legislative requirement and these ends are subserved, the claim has accomplished the purpose intended.” In Friederichsen v. Renard, 247 U.S. 207 , 38 S.Ct. 450, 451 , 62 L.Ed. 1075 , the court said: “The cause of action is the wrong done, not the measure of compensation for it, or the character of the relief sought, and, considered as a matter of substance, the change in the statement of that wrong in the amended petition cannot, in any just sense, be considered a new or different cause of action.” See also Finzer v. Peter, 120 Neb. 389 , 232 N.W.

1952When the claim substantially complies with the legislative requirement and these ends are subserved, the claim has accomplished the purpose intended.” In Friederichsen v. Renard, 247 U.S. 207 , 38 S.Ct. 450, 451 , 62 L.Ed. 1075 , the court said: “The cause of action is the wrong done, not the measure of compensation for it, or the character of the relief sought, and, considered as a matter of substance, the change in the statement of that wrong in the amended petition cannot, in any just sense, be considered a new or different cause of action.” See also Finzer v. Peter, 120 Neb. 389 , 232 N.W.

11952–1952
Friederichsen v. Renard green
scotus · 1918
2 sentences

1952When the claim substantially complies with the legislative requirement and these ends are subserved, the claim has accomplished the purpose intended.” In Friederichsen v. Renard, 247 U.S. 207 , 38 S.Ct. 450, 451 , 62 L.Ed. 1075 , the court said: “The cause of action is the wrong done, not the measure of compensation for it, or the character of the relief sought, and, considered as a matter of substance, the change in the statement of that wrong in the amended petition cannot, in any just sense, be considered a new or different cause of action.” See also Finzer v. Peter, 120 Neb. 389 , 232 N.W.

1952When the claim substantially complies with the legislative requirement and these ends are subserved, the claim has accomplished the purpose intended.” In Friederichsen v. Renard, 247 U.S. 207 , 38 S.Ct. 450, 451 , 62 L.Ed. 1075 , the court said: “The cause of action is the wrong done, not the measure of compensation for it, or the character of the relief sought, and, considered as a matter of substance, the change in the statement of that wrong in the amended petition cannot, in any just sense, be considered a new or different cause of action.” See also Finzer v. Peter, 120 Neb. 389 , 232 N.W.

11952–1952
Weyant v. Utah Savings & Trust Co. green
· 1919
2 sentences

1952In Weyant v. Utah Savings and Trust Co., 54 Utah 181 , 182 P. 189, 199 , 9 A.L.R. 1119 , the court said: “The respondents had but one state of facts to present to the court, and it is upon those facts that relief, if any is granted, must be based.

1952In Weyant v. Utah Savings and Trust Co., 54 Utah 181 , 182 P. 189, 199 , 9 A.L.R. 1119 , the court said: “The respondents had but one state of facts to present to the court, and it is upon those facts that relief, if any is granted, must be based.

11952–1952

Where else courts name it

TX 228 (1917–2026) CA 201 (1936–2026) PA 107 (1902–2026) MI 91 (1918–2025) WV 90 (1943–2025) CT 81 (1960–2025) NJ 65 (1950–2025) NY 63 (1889–2024) MD 61 (1959–2022) FL 57 (1935–2023) IL 55 (1914–2025) LA 41 (1913–2023) WA 37 (1913–2026) OR 33 (1914–2025) OH 30 (1935–2025) AZ 25 (1944–2025) IA 25 (1950–2024) WI 24 (1971–2023) KS 23 (1958–2021) RI 22 (1976–2020) CO 20 (1949–2019) NM 19 (1969–2026) NC 19 (1976–2026) KY 18 (1963–2024) MS 16 (1968–2017) AK 15 (1969–2024) AL 15 (1922–2013) UT 14 (1988–2025) MN 14 (1884–2025) IN 13 (1942–2024) ME 12 (1961–2021) WY 12 (1978–2010) TN 11 (1955–2021) GA 11 (1987–2020) DC 11 (1972–2015) MO 11 (1979–2019) VA 11 (1996–2024) ID 10 (1980–2019) NE 9 (1928–2014) OK 9 (1960–2015) NH 9 (1927–2022) VT 8 (1932–2025) MT 8 (1921–2026) DE 7 (1963–1995) MA 7 (1966–2025) SC 7 (1938–2023) NV 6 (1952–2021) AR 5 (1945–2019) HI 5 (1981–2019) ND 5 (1974–2014) SD 3 (1984–2017) VI 3 (1978–2016) PR 3 (1937–2014)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check